Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJ.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Dec 8, 2003 9:06am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

You say a license disallowing derivative works "is the most appropriate" license but you don't say why. It would not seem to be the most appropriate license because people apparently want to be able to make derivative works?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffsimon c Date: Dec 8, 2003 11:10am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivative works

Ah, OK, some clarification is needed, I think.

So, it's not necessarily the original artist uploading these netlabel collections to the Archive. Often, it's the netlabel maintainers/label owners, who've been given the tracks to release by the artist some months or even years beforehand.

So, and I can only speak for my own label here (Monotonik), I have to keep to the same standards that the artist expected from me when he gave me the song/EP/album. That standard is, in my estimation, that it can be given away and redistributed non-commercially for free, but if anyone wants to use it in another project, they should check first. When people gave me tunes on Monotonik, they did not say to me that it was OK for the music to be used anywhere else.

Thus, the only fair license that I can use to describe these records is a non-derivative one. I'm not prepared to give away the derivative rights to something that aren't mine to give away in the first place.

On the other hand, it's possible the artists might be good with this - but we have to go back on an artist-by-artist basis and ask them, which may hopefully start happening as we clean up the Creative Commons licensing for the site.

This post was modified by simon c on 2003-12-08 19:10:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffdavid turgeon Date: Dec 8, 2003 11:56am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

i am in the same position as simon's: running a netlabel (no type) & having to select a license that most resembles the original terms by which the music was offered to the label for digital distribution. as such, my opinion on the matter is exactly the same as simon's.

when my netlabel was started, the creative commons (CC) project did not exist yet, & there was no typical license for netreleases.

because of this, i decided to offer each individual artist to operate under a custom license which happens to be very close in spirit to the CC-designed Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial license. i would be betraying a great number of individual artists if i selected a new license which did not largely correspond to the original one.

however, the most important thing to remember is that it is NOT up to the listener to decide what is more "appropriate". this decision is up to (1) the copyright law, & (2) the artist.

if the artist doesn't want (for any reason) to allow derivative works without being asked first, that's entirely up to them, no matter what listeners may deem "appropriate".

i mean, even under such a "oh so restrictive" license, the music is still free to download, copy & broadcast for any non-commercial purpose, isn't that already a lot? in this light, it seems to me absolutely essential to respect the artist's decision.

bottom line: if artists want to grant the Derivative clause, that's up to them & i will gladly change their license accordingly. but if _listeners_ want artists to grant the Derivative clause, they will have to convince them so.

& to end on a more personal note: as an artist, when it comes to my own music, i am personally not convinced that a blanket agreement is the way to go. i am much more open to evaluating permission requests on a case-by-case basis (even if it means accepting them all!) that said, i'm more than ready to listen if someone wants to try changing my mind; i just wanted to make clear my own stance on the subject.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffbrewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 3:55pm
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

I certainly respect your take on the licensing issues. I am trying to understand how this all plays out by trying things...

In this case, it is making little hobby movies (lego animations). If I want to set music to it, then I would like to go and grab music from a repository. If I were trying to make a great film, I would think harder, but since I am not (or rather, my children are not), I would not want to bother artists or have the possibility of being turned down...

In this case, I would think that for many artists the "non-commercial" restriction would be enough to restrict use rather than also saying it could not be used as a part of other non-commercial projects, especially if attribution were required.

but this is just the musings of a non-artist. Again, I respect those that are doing the real thing-- making music available to others to enjoy.

-brewster

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffdavid turgeon Date: Dec 9, 2003 2:16am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

i don't think anybody can legally restrict you from making a private animation work using any music you like (even commercial). the issue is whether or not you publish it (i.e. make it public). & as i said before, i'm quite certain the artists involved will be happy to grant you this permission if you ask them directly. regardless, that would be, i think, the polite thing to do if you plan to create a derivative work.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJ.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Dec 14, 2003 5:03am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

Your opinion that you must "select a license that most resembles the original terms by which the music was offered to the label for digital distribution" conflicts with your opinion that deciding on a license is up to the artist. And the latter opinion might not be correct.

It is the copyright holder, not necessarily the artist, who has the power to pick the license. If that license allows sublicensing, then licensors can relicense the work, but most licenses I've seen for audiovisual work do not allow sublicensing.

Because the copyright holder has this exclusive power, the distributors cannot "select a license that most resembles the original terms". Any distributors have to abide by the terms of the license the copyright holder picked.

The posters asking for a more liberal license understand this, that is why they are asking copyright holders and those who contact the copyright holders to relicense more liberally. Appropriateness is for the licensors to decide because they have to pick works based on artistic quality and licensing terms. Please don't chide anyone for asking (which is all that is going on in this thread) for a more liberal license. The flexibility of computers makes it clear that it is not "already a lot" to expect to make derivative works in addition to non-commercial verbatim copying and distribution in any medium.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffsimon c Date: Dec 14, 2003 6:37am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Re: a plea for license allowing derivitive[sic] works

Your input is appreciated, Mr. Nicholson-Owens. Bear in mind that this is a work in progress, and netlabels are all spending considerable amounts of their spare time giving away music for free.

It is important that we get licensing right, and I think, and hope, we'll be moving towards a license that's as wide as possible without the artists in question being upset about it.

Finally, I don't think anyone is 'chiding' anyone else for asking about this. In fact, my plan is to start by asking individual artists to put together a compilation that can specifically be labelled as 'derivative works allowed', so people like Brewster's kids will have some neat music to go with their Lego movies after all. That, at least, is a good start.

s!

This post was modified by simon c on 2003-12-14 14:37:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJ.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Dec 14, 2003 5:34am
Forum: netlabels Subject: Small correction to parent post--licensees not licensors

I meant to say "licensees" (those to whom a license is granted) not "licensors" (those who grant the license). Of course, those who grant licenses can always license the work under as many licenses as they wish to as many licensees as there are.